Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in front!
Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to get through
but the junction was blocked - several cars further down there were
massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction clear.

Another near me often has cars backing up when the light change - yet in
the distance is someone leaving a 2 car gap in front. Probably the
mentality of "I won't get there any faster if I close up"

Similar annoyance is Mr Kind who stops to let cars out of every side road -
preferably before they have to stop. What about some consideration to those
behind?

On 07/04/2021 14:09, JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in front!
Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to get through
but the junction was blocked - several cars further down there were
massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction clear.

Another near me often has cars backing up when the light change - yet in
the distance is someone leaving a 2 car gap in front. Probably the
mentality of "I won't get there any faster if I close up"

So, every time a gap appears, it's his duty to put it into gear, rev up,
and drive forward. Why, in general, is that a good idea?

I fully accept, by the way, that he should do whatever he can to let the
ambulance through.



Similar annoyance is Mr Kind who stops to let cars out of every side road -
preferably before they have to stop. What about some consideration to those
behind?

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:31:38 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 07/04/2021 14:09, JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in front!
Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to get through
but the junction was blocked - several cars further down there were
massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction clear.

Another near me often has cars backing up when the light change - yet in
the distance is someone leaving a 2 car gap in front. Probably the
mentality of "I won't get there any faster if I close up"

So, every time a gap appears, it's his duty to put it into gear, rev up,
and drive forward. Why, in general, is that a good idea?

I fully accept, by the way, that he should do whatever he can to let the
ambulance through.


There have been times when I've 'closed up' to the car in front to
allow more people behind me to get though a junction etc (I'm very
conscious of such things) only to then find I'm trapped behind an
idiot with a load of space in front of them but seemingly unable to
make space for an emergency vehicle trying to get by.

If you leave some space (and I believe we are supposed to) you do have
a bit more flexibility for such things.

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Cheers, T i m

On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.





Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 15:41:53 +0100, GB
wrote:

snip

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run.

Agreed.

Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in.

I've not seen that round here, just one or maybe two kids in each.

A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

Whilst it may be completely coincidental, there seems to be some
correlation between the type / make / spec of the vehicle and where /
how you park it.

eg, Parked up on the grass right outside the school or across people
drives (often even with them displaying signs saying 'Keep clear, in
use 24 hours' etc) will be the SUV's or big BM's, Mercs or Audis then
as you get further away and parked properly on permitted areas and
parking bays, the more ordinary / mundane cars?

There is often the exception to the rule of course.

Cheers, T i m

In article , GB
writes
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.
The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.
People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

It's the shape people prefer rather than what comes out of a wind
tunnel. BTW a large number of Evoques now on the road are 2 wheel drive.


--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , GB
writes
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.
The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.
People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

It's the shape people prefer rather than what comes out of a wind
tunnel. BTW a large number of Evoques now on the road are 2 wheel drive.

Amazing how many people like driving something the size of a van.

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

On Thursday, 8 April 2021 at 20:47:34 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

We have had a number of Kugas over the years and these are based on the same chassis as the Ford Focus and as such no longer or wider just taller which is the main reason we went for one in the first place. The first one we went for was going to be just a two wheel drive but due to an offer from the main agent we ended up with a 4WD. Subsequent ones were all 4WD mainly for better cornering and the occasional snowy day we get here in the Pennines. I have only been off road on a few occasions if you can call it that when parking in a field for some festival or show. Present one is a PHEV and as such is a mere front wheel drive automatic. I like SUVs and since changing to one have never suffered the back ache I got driving a Mondeo and getting in and out is a cinch compared to saloons.

Richard

In article , JNugent
writes
On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large
SUV fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

No

--
bert

On 10/04/2021 03:08 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
On 08 Apr 2021 at 20:47:30 BST, JNugent wrote:

On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

They appear to be taller. Not sure if they're wider door-handle to
door-handle.

Taller is good. Especially at my age.

On 10/04/2021 15:08, Tim Streater wrote:
On 08 Apr 2021 at 20:47:30 BST, JNugent wrote:

On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

They appear to be taller. Not sure if they're wider door-handle to
door-handle.

My XF is longer and wider than my Freelander. Too wide to fit in the garage


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
On 08 Apr 2021 at 20:47:30 BST, JNugent wrote:

On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.
They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very ordinary
cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and Ford?

They appear to be taller.

Not only appear to be, they actually are much taller.

Not sure if they're wider door-handle to door-handle.

They are than the smallest cars most manufacturers have.

I can sleep on the back seat sideways across the car
with normal cars but not with the smallest models
most have like the Getz and Jazz.

T i m posted

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities

Well almost any vehicle is going to be in the top ten of a list of
categories of road vehicle. There aren't very many categories anyway.

and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Many city-dwellers have them because they own a second home in the
country, where they often *are* useful whether you go off road or not. I
don't go off-road but there's been plenty of times I've been glad of 4WD
mode.

--
Algernon

In article ,
Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
T i m posted

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities

Well almost any vehicle is going to be in the top ten of a list of
categories of road vehicle. There aren't very many categories anyway.

and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Many city-dwellers have them because they own a second home in the
country, where they often *are* useful whether you go off road or not. I
don't go off-road but there's been plenty of times I've been glad of 4WD
mode.

when these vehicles first appeared they were known a "Off the road
vehicles".
Ideal for parking on the pavement.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 17:01:10 +0100, charles wrote:


when these vehicles first appeared they were known a "Off the road
vehicles".

Off-road. "Off the road" means broken.

Ideal for parking on the pavement.

:-)

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:03:02 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard
wrote:

T i m posted

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities

Well almost any vehicle is going to be in the top ten of a list of
categories of road vehicle.

Ah, I see you have added an 'in' there. ;-)

There aren't very many categories anyway.

Well, there are a few but I'll give you there aren't millions.

and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Many city-dwellers have them because they own a second home in the
country, where they often *are* useful whether you go off road or not.

The news report suggested otherwise?

I
don't go off-road but there's been plenty of times I've been glad of 4WD
mode.

See above.

This was an old report and may have been USA focused (where SUV's may
be bigger than they are here).

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...figures-reveal

The thing I saw on the news was suggesting they will be trying to
lobby the government to get vehicle manufacturers to stop pushing
their best money makers a bit less forcibly

This is closer to what the news item was saying:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-report-urges

I think they were saying that one EV was sold for every 37 SUV's and
from their observation, very few were required by their owners for the
characteristics that they offered, so was more a lifestyle choice and
that in turn was a function of aggressive marketing based on best
profits, at the cost to the environment to all of us.

Now, if you actually *need* the size, weight, space or 4x4 features
then you aren't part of their / our issues.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:03:02 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard
wrote:

T i m posted

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities

Well almost any vehicle is going to be in the top ten of a list of
categories of road vehicle.

Ah, I see you have added an 'in' there. ;-)

There aren't very many categories anyway.

Well, there are a few but I'll give you there aren't millions.

and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Many city-dwellers have them because they own a second home in the
country, where they often *are* useful whether you go off road or not.

The news report suggested otherwise?

I
don't go off-road but there's been plenty of times I've been glad of 4WD
mode.

See above.

This was an old report and may have been USA focused (where SUV's may
be bigger than they are here).

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...figures-reveal

The thing I saw on the news was suggesting they will be trying to
lobby the government to get vehicle manufacturers to stop pushing
their best money makers a bit less forcibly

This is closer to what the news item was saying:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-report-urges

I think they were saying that one EV was sold for every 37 SUV's and
from their observation, very few were required by their owners for the
characteristics that they offered, so was more a lifestyle choice

some 20 years ago, my daughter had a cartoon from the Telegraph weekend
supplement pinned up in her kitchen. In the female character was saying "I
want my child to have wide open space, security and fresh air. So we've
bought a large 4x4 with aircondtioning and central locking."

What's new?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:31:38 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 07/04/2021 14:09, JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in
front!
Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to get
through
but the junction was blocked - several cars further down there were
massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction clear.

Another near me often has cars backing up when the light change - yet in
the distance is someone leaving a 2 car gap in front. Probably the
mentality of "I won't get there any faster if I close up"

So, every time a gap appears, it's his duty to put it into gear, rev up,
and drive forward. Why, in general, is that a good idea?

I fully accept, by the way, that he should do whatever he can to let the
ambulance through.


There have been times when I've 'closed up' to the car in front to
allow more people behind me to get though a junction etc (I'm very
conscious of such things) only to then find I'm trapped behind an
idiot with a load of space in front of them but seemingly unable to
make space for an emergency vehicle trying to get by.

If you leave some space (and I believe we are supposed to) you do have
a bit more flexibility for such things.

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Nope, women drivers feel safer in them, even tho they are actually less safe
in reality.

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 05:10:14 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Nope

LOL! Senile asshole!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On 07/04/2021 08:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message

[ ... ]

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.
The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.
People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Nope, women drivers feel safer in them, even tho they are actually less
safe in reality.

Less safe for the occupants?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 07/04/2021 08:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message

[ ... ]

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.
The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.
People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Nope, women drivers feel safer in them, even tho they are actually less
safe in reality.

Less safe for the occupants?

Yep, more likely to roll over and not as good crumple zone wise.

Less safe for non occupants too, much easier to back over one of your little
kids too.

On 08/04/2021 20:50, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2021 08:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message

[ ... ]

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.
The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.
People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Nope, women drivers feel safer in them, even tho they are actually
less safe in reality.

Less safe for the occupants?

Far less safe for any person outside the vehicle that they
might hit

On 07/04/2021 14:31, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 14:09, JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in
front!
Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to get
through
but the junction was blocked -Â* several cars further down there were
massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction clear.

Another near me often has cars backing up when the light change - yet in
the distance is someone leaving a 2 car gap in front. Probably the
mentality of "I won't get there any faster if I close up"

So, every time a gap appears, it's his duty to put it into gear, rev up,
and drive forward. Why, in general, is that a good idea?

I fully accept, by the way, that he should do whatever he can to let the
ambulance through.



Similar annoyance is Mr Kind who stops to let cars out of every side
road -
preferably before they have to stop. What about some consideration to
those
behind?


Why, when I leave a suitable safe gap between me and the vehicle
in front, does some dickhead overtake and fill it, achieving
precisely nothing because there is a long line of vehicles
ahead ?.

In article , Andrew
writes
On 07/04/2021 14:31, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 14:09, JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in
front!
Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to get
through
but the junction was blocked -* several cars further down there were
massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction clear.

Another near me often has cars backing up when the light change - yet in
the distance is someone leaving a 2 car gap in front. Probably the
mentality of "I won't get there any faster if I close up"
So, every time a gap appears, it's his duty to put it into gear, rev
up, and drive forward. Why, in general, is that a good idea?
I fully accept, by the way, that he should do whatever he can to let
the ambulance through.


Similar annoyance is Mr Kind who stops to let cars out of every side
road -
preferably before they have to stop. What about some consideration
to those
behind?


Why, when I leave a suitable safe gap between me and the vehicle
in front, does some dickhead overtake and fill it, achieving
precisely nothing because there is a long line of vehicles
ahead ?.
All the time on the motorways. Driving to close in front of the vehicle
behind.
--
bert

I think you have a responsibility to those behind. If everyone allowed a
gap to develop then the queue gets longer.

On 07/04/2021 14:31, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 14:09, JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in
front!
Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to get
through
but the junction was blocked -Â* several cars further down there were
massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction clear.

Another near me often has cars backing up when the light change - yet in
the distance is someone leaving a 2 car gap in front. Probably the
mentality of "I won't get there any faster if I close up"

So, every time a gap appears, it's his duty to put it into gear, rev up,
and drive forward. Why, in general, is that a good idea?..

At a level crossing near me, large gaps in the queue result in the tail
of the queue backing up into a roundabout, eventually blocking traffic
from four other roads that lead into it. Better awareness by some
drivers of the effects their actions are having would help.



--
Colin Bignell

nightjar wrote in
:

On 07/04/2021 14:31, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 14:09, JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in
front!
Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to get
through
but the junction was blocked -Â* several cars further down there
were massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction
clear.

Another near me often has cars backing up when the light change -
yet in the distance is someone leaving a 2 car gap in front.
Probably the mentality of "I won't get there any faster if I close
up"

So, every time a gap appears, it's his duty to put it into gear, rev
up, and drive forward. Why, in general, is that a good idea?..

At a level crossing near me, large gaps in the queue result in the
tail of the queue backing up into a roundabout, eventually blocking
traffic from four other roads that lead into it. Better awareness by
some drivers of the effects their actions are having would help.




Exactly the situation I mean.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:57:32 +0100, nightjar wrote:

snip

At a level crossing near me, large gaps in the queue result in the tail
of the queue backing up into a roundabout, eventually blocking traffic
from four other roads that lead into it. Better awareness by some
drivers of the effects their actions are having would help.

This is often an issue when you have anything past a junction or
access where you may have two lanes that merge into one ahead (where
there may be as you say, a railway crossing).

The first car pulls up in the left lane (as the right lane is the one
that disappears).

The next car pulls up behind the first (unless it's a white van / SUV
/ 4X4 / Merc / BMW or Audi etc). ;-)

The third car, if they aren't 'local' (or any of the above) might also
pull up behind the others but now the tail end of this queue is
getting closer to the entrance of a petrol station or a roundabout /
junction etc.

So, the locals know to fill both lanes (alternating) but any non
locals get ****ed off because they see the people coming down the
outside as queue jumping?

It is queue jumping IMHO when you overtake a slowing queue approaching
a well marked (in advanced) roadwork's on a dual carriageway because
the filtering at the pinch point is more difficult for many to manage
than a pre configured single line (especially those who overtake the
entire queue then try to force themselves in last second).

I loved it the other day when the M25 was blocked off and we were all
having to take an exit by the overhead gantries. Those who didn't feel
they should join the end of the queue and carried on down the outside,
hoping to force their way in at the last second were being filtered
off and 'done' by a batch of Policemen (for traveling some distance
past a 'blocked' lane marker). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
At a level crossing near me, large gaps in the queue result in the tail
of the queue backing up into a roundabout, eventually blocking traffic
from four other roads that lead into it. Better awareness by some
drivers of the effects their actions are having would help.

This is often an issue when you have anything past a junction or
access where you may have two lanes that merge into one ahead (where
there may be as you say, a railway crossing).

There was a sad case in the USA some years ago where a railway ran parallel
and close to a road which had traffic lights to control access from a side
road over a level crossing on the railway. Vehicles were queued on the side
road at the traffic lights and backed up as far as the level crossing. A bus
(I think it may have been a school bus) stopped *on* the crossing. And the
lights started to flash because a train was coming...

The TV programme I saw which analysed this crash mentioned that city
authorities looked as ways of integrating the level crossing with the
traffic lights, so that when a train was due, traffic on the side road got a
green light which cleared the queue and prevented it backing up on the level
crossing. They completely missed the point that all level crossings should
be treated as what we in the UK call box junctions: do not enter unless
there is sufficient space on the far side to accommodate your vehicle. It
sounded as if in the USA, the concept of not stopping *on* a level crossing
was somewhat alien to them ;-)



Box junctions at side junctions work well, apart from one little flaw: you
can be on the major road, with traffic from a side road on the left obliged
to give way to you. And you stop at the box junction. As soon as the traffic
ahead moves, a car on the side road turns left and occupies the space. And
then another one does when the traffic moves again. And you on the major
road are stuck there like a lemon, never able to go because no-one on the
side road gives you the priority that the HC rules decree. Without the box
junction, you'd be right behind the car ahead, and the side-road car would
not be able to get out - unless you *allowed* it, as courtesy suggests
should happen *occasionally* (as opposed to every time, as a defined right).
But this would block oncoming traffic which wants to turn right into the
side road and is why the box junction is there. It could be solved by the
box junction only covering the patch of main road that right-turners need to
turn into the side road, whereas often it covers the whole width of road in
front of the side road, including the bit used by side road traffic turning
left.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 11:48:50 +0100, NY wrote:

snip

Box junctions at side junctions work well, apart from one little flaw:
you can be on the major road, with traffic from a side road on the left
obliged to give way to you. And you stop at the box junction. As soon as
the traffic ahead moves, a car on the side road turns left and occupies
the space. And then another one does when the traffic moves again. And
you on the major road are stuck there like a lemon, never able to go
because no-one on the side road gives you the priority that the HC rules
decree.

The actual rule is you may not enter the box if the exit is blocked by
stationary traffic. Once the traffic starts moving you may enter the box.
Stopping in the box because the traffic in front has subsequently stopped
is not an offence.

On 08/04/2021 11:48, NY wrote:
There was a sad case in the USA some years ago where a railway ran
parallel and close to a road which had traffic lights to control access
from a side road over a level crossing on the railway.

Take a look at Kiveton Park Station. Nightmare.

Bill

On 07/04/2021 14:09, JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in front!
Watched a busy junction yesterday

Learner drivers are taught to be able to see the rear wheels of the car
in front when they stop.

Also if the car in front rolls back, you get the blame for being too close.

In article ,
JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in
front! Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to
get through but the junction was blocked - several cars further down
there were massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction
clear.

Don't be silly. It needs a driver to be awake and thoughtful to leave a
junction clear unless a yellow box where they risk a penalty. And try
doing it with a side street. And get hooted at by the white van behind.

--
*War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 07/04/2021 14:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in
front! Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to
get through but the junction was blocked - several cars further down
there were massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction
clear.

Don't be silly. It needs a driver to be awake and thoughtful to leave a
junction clear unless a yellow box where they risk a penalty. And try
doing it with a side street. And get hooted at by the white van behind.


If people stopped making pointless journeys by car then the
roads would be much emptier.

Roll on road pricing.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:57:17 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in
front! Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to
get through but the junction was blocked - several cars further down
there were massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction
clear.

Don't be silly. It needs a driver to be awake and thoughtful to leave a
junction clear unless a yellow box where they risk a penalty. And try
doing it with a side street. And get hooted at by the white van behind.

Or get a ticket because the space you were going to pull into on the
other side of a small box gets filled by a vehicle pulling out in
front of you from the side road and taking the space (often
pressurised to do that by as you say, someone behind wanting to turn
left down the sideroad).

It's a shame they don't care to look at the CCTV and spot when someone
has been put in such a position by others not following the rules
(moral / ethical if not illegal).

Cheers, T i m

In article , T i m
writes
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:57:17 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
JohnP wrote:
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in
front! Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to
get through but the junction was blocked - several cars further down
there were massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction
clear.

Don't be silly. It needs a driver to be awake and thoughtful to leave a
junction clear unless a yellow box where they risk a penalty. And try
doing it with a side street. And get hooted at by the white van behind.

Or get a ticket because the space you were going to pull into on the
other side of a small box gets filled by a vehicle pulling out in
front of you from the side road and taking the space (often
pressurised to do that by as you say, someone behind wanting to turn
left down the sideroad).

It's a shame they don't care to look at the CCTV and spot when someone
has been put in such a position by others not following the rules
(moral / ethical if not illegal).

Cheers, T i m
You should get a job as a PCSO round here. It's all they ****ing do all
day.
--
bert

In article , JohnP
writes
Similar annoyance is Mr Kind who stops to let cars out of every side road -
preferably before they have to stop. What about some consideration to those
behind?
Now that I do agree with. Even when they stop for me. You've
automatically gone into "wait for them" mode then the idiot goes and
stops to wave you through for no good reason. I WAS HAPPY TO WAIT A FEW
SECONDS YOU NUMPTY.

Whilst we're having a moan, people who instantly stop when they see or
hear blue lights rather than assessing the situation and timing pulling
in as appropriate as the emergency vehicle approaches.
--
bert

bert wrote in :

In article , JohnP
writes
Similar annoyance is Mr Kind who stops to let cars out of every side
road - preferably before they have to stop. What about some
consideration to those behind?
Now that I do agree with. Even when they stop for me. You've
automatically gone into "wait for them" mode then the idiot goes and
stops to wave you through for no good reason. I WAS HAPPY TO WAIT A
FEW SECONDS YOU NUMPTY.

Whilst we're having a moan, people who instantly stop when they see or
hear blue lights rather than assessing the situation and timing
pulling in as appropriate as the emergency vehicle approaches.

Agreed - or risks their tyres and tracking by bumping up the kerb.

The driver that flashes and waves me out is a danger. I will decide when it
is save as usually that driver hasn't assessed to total situation. I once
got hit by a car that came out of a junction - because a car flashed and
waved him out - but I was turning in!

On 07/04/2021 22:58, JohnP wrote:
bert wrote in :

In article , JohnP
writes
Similar annoyance is Mr Kind who stops to let cars out of every side
road - preferably before they have to stop. What about some
consideration to those behind?
Now that I do agree with. Even when they stop for me. You've
automatically gone into "wait for them" mode then the idiot goes and
stops to wave you through for no good reason. I WAS HAPPY TO WAIT A
FEW SECONDS YOU NUMPTY.

Whilst we're having a moan, people who instantly stop when they see or
hear blue lights rather than assessing the situation and timing
pulling in as appropriate as the emergency vehicle approaches.

Agreed - or risks their tyres and tracking by bumping up the kerb.

The driver that flashes and waves me out is a danger. I will decide when it
is save as usually that driver hasn't assessed to total situation. I once
got hit by a car that came out of a junction - because a car flashed and
waved him out - but I was turning in!

The weekend before last it was a cyclist - who kept waving me past,
despite it being a fairly narrow country road, close to a bend, with no
idea what might be coming the other way.